Organizing Framework — the Review's Spine (arpsych-organizing-framework)

When to trigger

• The evidence matrix is built but the draft would read like a list of studies
• Sections are named after methods ("fMRI studies", "behavioral studies") rather than ideas
• A reader could not predict what comes next or why studies are grouped as they are
• You cannot state in one sentence the argument the review makes about the field

Why the spine is the whole game at ARPsych

The most-cited reason review articles fail is that they are annotated bibliographies: study-after-study summaries with no organizing idea. A great ARPsych review imposes a structure the field did not have — a taxonomy, a unifying model, a sequence of questions, or a process diagram — that makes scattered work legible to a psychologist from an adjacent area. The framework is the contribution; the citations are the evidence. ARPsych's accessibility mandate raises the bar: the spine must be graspable by a non-specialist psychologist (a social psychologist reading a memory review) on one read. Choose it deliberately:

Pick one primary spine; a second axis can order studies within a section, but a review with two competing spines reads as two reviews.

The test of a good framework

• Exhaustive + exclusive (MECE-ish): every important study has exactly one natural home, and categories do not bleed.
• Generative: the framework predicts gaps — empty cells are open questions, not omissions (ARPsych prizes the forward-looking agenda).
• Reconciling: apparent contradictions become explained (studies disagree because they sit in different cells / measure different constructs / use different paradigms).
• Portable: an adjacent psychologist can restate the spine after one read and slot a new study into it.

Stress-test by placing 5 hard cases (studies that resist categorization). If three have no home, the spine is wrong — redesign before drafting.

The spine is also what lets an ARPsych review be selective without being incomplete: once each cell is defined, confirmatory studies can be cited in clusters within their cell while the prose discusses only the cell-defining work. This is how you honor coverage and the assigned-length envelope at once (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Design the spine before deciding what to foreground.

Checklist

• One primary spine chosen (taxonomy / process / levels / question-sequence / paradigm / theory-contest)
• The review's one-sentence argument about the field is written
• Every category traces to evidence-matrix rows (no empty rhetorical buckets)
• The framework reconciles at least one apparent contradiction in the literature
• Empty cells surfaced as open questions (the future agenda ARPsych expects)
• 5 hard-case studies each have a natural home
• Section headings name ideas/mechanisms, not "fMRI vs. behavioral"
• An adjacent psychologist could restate the spine and slot a new study into it

Anti-patterns

• The annotated bibliography: study-by-study summaries with no organizing idea (the cardinal sin)
• Sections named by method ("Neuroimaging", "Behavioral", "Other") — carry no analytical content
• A taxonomy whose categories overlap so every study is cited in three places
• Two competing spines fighting for control of the same review
• A framework so bespoke only the author can apply it (fails the accessibility test)
• Hiding the contribution: never stating, in one sentence, what the review argues about the field

Output format

【Spine type】taxonomy / process / levels / question-sequence / paradigm / theory-contest
【Argument about the field】"<one sentence the review makes>"
【Categories】<the cells / stages / sub-questions, each MECE>
【Reconciliation】<which contradiction the framework explains>
【Open questions】<empty cells surfaced as the future agenda>
【Hard-case test】5 awkward studies each placed? Y/N
【Accessibility】an adjacent psychologist can restate the spine? Y/N
【Next step】→ arpsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance (cover the cells fairly)